ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance made under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 33. The assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 200% under section 35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

disallowance under Section 14A is set aside to the files of the AO for deciding the issue in accordance with law. 3.6 The next issue is regarding the allowance of weighted deduction under section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

sections": [ "14A", "Rule 8D", "43(1)", "35(2AB)", "80G", "115JB" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance under Section 14A is to be made

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of claim of weighted deduction should be deleted and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland in ITA No.362/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024. 10.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal 35(1)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has not preferred any Appeal against that finding and therefore, the question of approval by the that finding and therefore, the question of approval

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowing the capital expenditure is erroneous by discriminating in accepting the Form 3CL. Firstly, let us understand the provisions of the Section 35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

disallowing the capital expenditure is erroneous by discriminating in accepting the Form 3CL. Firstly, let us understand the provisions of the Section 35

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under Section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per Section 10(35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under Section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per Section 10(35

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014-\n15 except AY 2010-11.\n4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee\nhas earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in\nmutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the as In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 35 of the Act. Hence, out of the total deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs.769,77,45,394/ ction claimed by the assessee of Rs.769,77,45,394/ ction claimed by the assessee of Rs.769,77,45,394/-, the AO allowed normal 100% deduction to the extent of Rs.386,88,72,661/ AO allowed normal 100% deduction

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowed under section 35(2AB) under the provisions of Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. In connection

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is common for all the AYs being AY 2011-12 to AY 2014- 15 except AY 2010-11. 4.2 Facts for AY 2010-11: During the AY 2010-11, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.11,83,308/- from investment in mutual funds which is exempt as per section 10(35